(Original post by ideas4life)
You missed my second comment where Muhammad actually went out and used catapults against an entire tribe full of families, men, women and children.

See siege of taif

I see you're still refusing to comment on anything I've actually stated.

And during a siege, which is a war situation, of course he is going to attack. That does not mean he is for indiscriminate killing. Something you seem unable to even contemplate. Nor do you even seem to be able to discuss the fact that collateral damage is a fact of war even in the modern era. See Afghanistan, for example, or Iraq.

(Original post by ideas4life)
Now your changing the debate. Initially it was about whether the people of lot were homosexual. You seem to think its logically possible for the people of lot mentioned in quran and hadith to commit sodomoy without being homosexual.

Heres a case when Muhammad deliberately was FOR killing an unarmed women:

I haven't changed the debate. My position has always been that not once does the Qur'an mention homosexuality, and you have been unable to prove it does. Sure you can point to instances where sodomy is damned, but as I've specifically shown, sodomy and homosexuality are not equivalent. You've refused to address my comments on female homosexuals and the fact that many male homosexuals do not participate in sodomy. You're blinded by your prejudices and are seaching for any way to damn Islam, so much so you can no longer present things objectively. This is very clear in the fact you never once give a balanced argument, always picking the worst aspects of the religion, without ever considering the better aspects. Yet you never show Western philosophy or society the same kind of bias.

As for the quote on the woman, she appears to have been a "false" Goddess, so it's understandable that he would be for her killing.

(Original post by Hylean)
My position has always been that not once does the Qur'an mention homosexuality,

Quran mentions homosexuality, whats your next arguement:

And (remember) Lut: behold, he said to his people: "Ye do commit lewdness, such as no people in Creation (ever) committed before you. "Do ye indeed approach men, and cut off the highway?- and practise wickedness (even) in your councils?" But his people gave no answer but this: they said: "Bring us the Wrath of Allah if thou tellest the truth." He said: "O my Lord! help Thou me against people who do mischief!" When Our Messengers came to Abraham with the good news, they said: "We are indeed going to destroy the people of this township: for truly they are (addicted to) crime."Qur'an 29:28

If two men among you are guilty of lewdness, punish them both. If they repent and amend, Leave them alone; for Allah is Oft-returning, Most Merciful.Qur'an 4:16

The part of the verse where it says if they repent to let them go was abrogated and changed by Muhammad:

(And the two persons among you who commit illegal sexual intercourse, punish them both.) Ibn `Abbas and Sa`id bin Jubayr said that this punishment includes cursing, shaming them and beating them with sandals. This was the ruling until Allah abrogated it with flogging or stoning, as we stated. Mujahid said, "It was revealed about the case of two men who do it. As if he was referring to the actions of the people of Lut, and Allah knows best. The collectors of Sunan recorded that Ibn `Abbas said that the Messenger of Allah said,
«مَنْ رَأَيْتُمُوهُ يَعْمَلُ عَمَلَ قَوْمِ لُوطٍ، فَاقْتُلُوا الْفَاعِلَ وَالْمَفْعُولَ بِه»
(Whoever you catch committing the act of the people of Lut (homosexuality), then kill both parties to the act.)
The Adulteress is Confined in her House; A Command Later AbrogatedTafsir Ibn Kathir

(Original post by Iqbal007)
read the verse after:
[Quran 9:6]And if any one of the polytheists seeks your protection, then grant him protection so that he may hear the words of Allah . Then deliver him to his place of safety. That is because they are a people who do not know.

In that passage the offer of help is conditional, the condition being that the polytheist must put up with being preached to by the Muslim, before presumably converting.

A similar scenario took place duing the Irish potato famine in the 1840s. The missionaries sent by the British to help the starving Irish were Protestant and many refused to offer the locals any food or help unless they renounced Roman Catholicism and embraced the Protestant faith.

(Original post by sachinisgod)
There was a war at that time yes. But there isnt one now ( a literal war). So why havnt the views changed?

The view of this, still stands so that it is preserved when these circumstances arise.
In times of peace, Muslims stay in peace.......the circumstance and solutions can still be used in many applications eventhough it's not open war, such as in Syria, Libya, etc.

(Original post by Iqbal007)
The view of this, still stands so that it is preserved when these circumstances arise.
In times of peace, Muslims stay in peace.......the circumstance and solutions can still be used in many applications eventhough it's not open war, such as in Syria, Libya, etc.

(Original post by Iqbal007)
"On that account: We ordained for the Children of Israel that if any one slew a person - unless it be for murder or for spreading mischief in the land - it would be as if he slew the whole people: and if any one saved a life, it would be as if he saved the life of the whole people. Then although there came to them Our apostles with clear signs, yet, even after that, many of them continued to commit excesses in the land. (Noble Quran 5:32)"Response to claim that Islam teaches killing a person, including non muslim, is same as killing mankind

The full quote is actually:
"We said to the children of Israel. Whoever kills a person, unless for commiting murder or mischief/corruption, has killed all of mankind" [Quran 5: 32]".

Since muslims always scream about context, its only fair we look at the context of this verse.

Muslim scholar "ibn kathir", says that this only applies to muslims according to those who knew muhammad's companions:

"Sa`id bin Jubayr said, "He who allows himself to shed the blood of a Muslim, is like he who allows shedding the blood of all people. He who forbids shedding the blood of one Muslim, is like he who forbids shedding the blood of all people." [Tafsir ibn kathir]

He also said Mujahid ibn Jabar said:

He who kills a believing soul intentionally, Allah makes the Fire of Hell his abode, He will become angry with him, and curse him, and has prepared a tremendous punishment for him, equal to if he had killed all people, his punishment will still be the same.[Tafsir ibn Kathir]

This verse also says, you can kill somone for doing mischief. heres islams defintion of mischief (according to muhammads companion Qatada):

"(And when it is said to them: "Do not make mischief on the earth,"), means, "Do not commit acts of disobedience on the earth. Their mischief is disobeying Allah, because whoever disobeys Allah on the earth, or commands that Allah be disobeyed, he has committed mischief on the earth."[Tafsir ibn Kathir]

The above view is further backed up by Sahih Muslim 1: 176, which suggests that killing/fighting non-muslims is preventing mischief. Killing Muslims delibrately is promoting mischief. Furthermore, according to Sahih Bukhari 9: 83:50, Sahih Bukhari 1: 3:111, and Sahih Bukhari 4: 52:283 "no Muslim should be killed in Qisas (equality in punishment) for killing a Kafir (disbeliever)", and Sahih Bukhari 1: 8: 387, which indicates only muslim life is sacred.

Another famous muslim scholar:

"Whoever slays a soul (unless for, corruption, committed, in the land, in the way of unbelief, fornication or waylaying and the like), it shall be as if he had slain mankind altogether[Explanation of the verse by Imam al Suyuti, Tafsir al Jalayn]

1) Sayid ibn Jubayr, who lived at the time of Muhammad, and was a companion of Aisha is considered authentic.

2) Mujahid ibn Jabar, he is considered very authentic. He was a Tabi'un (and student of Ibn Abbas; a paternal cousin of Muhammad). Being a companion of Muhammad, Ibn Abbas was present around the time these verses were revealed. Together with Mujahid ibn Jabr, he went through the Qur'an thirty times and memorised the meanings. Muslim scholars consider Mujahid ibn Jabr to have the highest reliability.

(Original post by Iqbal007)
The view of this, still stands so that it is preserved when these circumstances arise.
In times of peace, Muslims stay in peace.......the circumstance and solutions can still be used in many applications eventhough it's not open war, such as in Syria, Libya, etc.

Actually, the translation says that, but we have no idea what the Arabic says. So I will wait for the original soruce before commenting on a Hadith, which is secondary to the Qur'an. He also lived a long time after Muhammed did, dying in 1373 or so.

(Original post by Iqbal007)
"But if the enemy incline towards peace, do thou (also) incline towards peace, and trust in God: for He is One that heareth and knoweth (all things). (The Noble Quran, 8:61)"

Response to claim that Islam teaches that if they incline towards peace, you incline towards peace

Muhammad's cousin Ibn Abbas and al-Suyuti and Ibn Kathir all said this verse has been abrogated and no longer applies:

‘This has been abrogated by the “sword verse” [Q. 9:5]’Ibn Abbas in Tafsir Ibn Abbas and Tafsir al-Jalalayn (Suyuti)

Muhammad believed fighting must go on forever

“Salamah bin Nufayl that he went to the Messenger of Allah and said, "I have let my horse go, and thrown down my weapon, for the war has ended. There is no more fighting. Then the Prophet said to him, Now the time of fighting has come. There will always be a group of my Ummah dominant over others. Allah will turn the hearts of some people away (from the truth), so they (that group) will fight against them, and Allah will bestow on them (war spoils) from them (the enemies) -- until Allah's command comes to pass while they are in that state.”Sunan an-Nasa'i 3591 & Musnad Ahmad ibn Hanbal

Muslim Scholars believed fighting must go on

"It is the consensus of the scholars of this Ummah that if part of the religion is Allah's and other part is not, fighting must go on until the entire religion is Allah's"Shaykh ul-Islaam Taqi ud-Deen Ahmad ibn Taymiyyah - The Religious and Moral Doctrine of Jihaad - p.28

(Original post by Hylean)
Actually, the translation says that, but we have no idea what the Arabic says. So I will wait for the original soruce before commenting on a Hadith, which is secondary to the Qur'an. He also lived a long time after Muhammed did, dying in 1373 or so.

As for the quotes from the Qur'an, "lewdness" is not homosexuality.

Look where you have come down to. First you were denying Islam is against homosexuality, that Quran doesn't homosexuality e.t.c

Now i gave all evidence and suddenly your arguing about the translation

Those scholars who dont accept that this verse was abrogated, do that because they think disbelief =fighting muslims. One can conclude that the Islamic definition of non combatant is not the same as the western definition.

For example people like Imam Shaffi (who's school of Islam is followed by 300 million + muslims) considered anyone who refused to pay jizyah (protection money) as a "combatant".

Dul khalasaisham Ibn Al-Kalbi mentions when Jarir ibn Abdullah proceeded to Dhul Khalasa, he was met with resistance. The Muslims led by him, fought and killed 100 men “of the Bahilah, its custodians, and many of the Khath'am” and another 200 men of the “Banu-Qubafah” tribes. He then demolished the building and set it on fire.

The Banu al Mustaliq, were allied to the Quraish of Mecca, therefore they were transgressing as they had a reason to attack the Muslims.

"On the day of Al-Ahzab (i.e. clans) the Prophet said, (After this battle) we will go to attack them (i.e. the infidels) and they will not come to attack us."
[Sahih Bukhari, 5: 59:435] The al-Azhar scholar was referring to the constant attacks by the pagans, etc, so just continually defending the Muslims were pointless if they continued to attack, so we had to stop them first.

Also these are certain set scholars which you are referring to......... if the case is that these verses are supposed to have been 'abrogated' then why havent they..... because it is there opinion and it is doubtful.

Imam Shafi, will even acknowledge to you that, it doesn't automatically mean they are combatants, but they are no longer allowed to be protected under Muslim lands.

(Original post by tif49)
One question ideas4life. If all these verses have indeed been 'abrogated' as you claim, why haven't they been taken out of the Qur'an that all Muslims read and is unchanged?

Also why does the ordinary Muslim not know about this? Why does the ordinary Muslim not agree with this?

Maybe it's not true.

Excellent question.

heres the answer mentioned in hadith, hope this clear it up:

I said to 'Uthman bin 'Affan (while he was collecting the Qur'an) regarding the Verse:-- "Those of you who die and leave wives ..." (2.240) "This Verse was abrogated by an other Verse. So why should you write it? (Or leave it in the Qur'an)?" 'Uthman said. "O son of my brother! I will not shift anything of it from its place."Sahih Bukhari 6: 60:53

So they were abrogated, and muhammad's companions Ali, Umar, Abu Bakr, and Uthman all knew about abrogated verses but still kept it in Quran according to this hadith

Why do people continue to argue with this guy? He is clearly picking up quotes from a Islamaphobic website and just plonking them on TSR. He actually has no real education of Islam and I can guarantee he hasn't read the Q'uran. What's the point in arguing with someone who isn't educated enough in the subject to provide a rational argument.?

(Original post by hughcapet)
In that passage the offer of help is conditional, the condition being that the polytheist must put up with being preached to by the Muslim, before presumably converting.

A similar scenario took place duing the Irish potato famine in the 1840s. The missionaries sent by the British to help the starving Irish were Protestant and many refused to offer the locals any food or help unless they renounced Roman Catholicism and embraced the Protestant faith.

This is a problem I have with both Chrsitianity and Islam.

Read the passage properly:
''And if any one of the polytheists seeks your protection'
If they do not wish to fight and want the protection of Muslims......
'then grant him protection so that he may hear the words of Allah'
We must protect them, so that they can possibly learn of Islam.
'Then deliver him to his place of safety. That is because they are a people who do not know.'
Then they will be put under protection in Muslim land, which will require them to pay Jizya to live in Muslim land under Muslim protection

(Original post by Iqbal007)
Read the passage properly:
''And if any one of the polytheists seeks your protection'
If they do not wish to fight and want the protection of Muslims......
'then grant him protection so that he may hear the words of Allah'
We must protect them, so that they can possibly learn of Islam.'Then deliver him to his place of safety. That is because they are a people who do not know.'
Then they will be put under protection in Muslim land, which will require them to pay Jizya to live in Muslim land under Muslim protection

Hence if after hearing the "word of god" and they "dont accept Muhammad a a prophet", their head must be chopped off according to Muhammad

You quote context but not the full context there. You failed to highlight the fact that Musaylimah the Liar, was a known enemy of Islam and actually waged war against Islam (The War of Apostasy)after the Prophet had died and Abu Bakr became the Caliph. He rallied all the hypocrites against the Muslims and those that refused to pay the Zakah (alms) that were required of them. The Prophet did not kill him, but I expect that they must have killed him afterwards in the War of Apostasy, as that's obviously what happens in war.

Word of advice: The full and required context is not given here, so I doubt it's given elsewhere.

(Original post by sachinisgod)
whats these two countries got to do with your original passage?

Last time i checked, both were civil wars.. muslims fighting muslims.

Because they can still apply to these circumstances, so instead of the opponent being a polytheist, they'll be the opposing combatant....also the other issue is that the Bassad regime are Alwite which fall outside of Islam, as their beliefs are way out of line in Islam.

You have no evidence for this. Muhammad attacked people for reasons such as these:

The main underlying reason for the expulsion of the clan of al-Nadir was the same as in the case of Quaynuqa, namely, that Jewish criticisms endangered teh ordinary Muslim's belief in Muhammad's prophethood and in the Quran as revelation from God.
William Montgomery Watt (Oxford University), his comments of Banu Nadir, Tabari, Al (2008), The foundation of the community, State University of New York Press, p. xxxv

% of the
Even Muslim scholars mentioned that 80% of the 80+ battles Muhammad ordered were offensive:

See link, Muslim scholar even mentions all battles and separates offensive battles between ones which were done for defenisve reasons and ones done for offensive reasons i.e to conquer: